Single Shot Espresso: Ukraine Supplemental – Interview with Dmitry Kolesnik

Court Proceedings of the Moscow Trials

Please download and distribute freely.

Late Night Marxism – Episode 1 – January 2014

Introducing my new monthly podcast “Late Night Marxism with Espresso Stalinist.” Hope you enjoy it!

 - E.S.

Karl Marx on New Year’s Day

marx

“At present, I am suffering from inflammation of the liver. And a very nice New Year’s gift too! Hitherto, the complaint has merely been chronic. Now it is becoming acute.”

- Karl Marx, “Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle In Berlin,” 1861

Mark Twain on New Year’s Day

MarkTwainCigar

“Now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual. Yesterday, everybody smoked his last cigar, took his last drink and swore his last oath. Today, we are a pious and exemplary community. Thirty days from now, we shall have cast our reformation to the winds and gone to cutting our ancient shortcomings considerably shorter than ever. We shall also reflect pleasantly upon how we did the same old thing last year about this time. However, go in, community. New Year’s is a harmless annual institution, of no particular use to anybody save as a scapegoat for promiscuous drinks, and friendly calls, and humbug resolutions, and we wish you to enjoy it with a looseness suited to the greatness of the occasion.”

Thoughts on Georges Soria’s Denunciation of “Trotskyism in the Service of Franco”

soria_trotskyismby Espresso Stalinist

Recently I was reading a PDF of the 1938 pamphlet Trotskyism in the Service of Franco: Facts and Documents on the Activities of the P.O.U.M. in Spain by Georges Soria. Soria was a representative in Spain of the French communist paper L’Humanité and also wrote for the International Press Correspondence of the Comintern. The material for the pamphlet was originally published as a series of articles reporting on the situation of the Spanish Civil War.

Forty years after its original publication, Soria is said to have denounced the work and its contents as a forgery.

The work has subsequently been dismissed as a fabrication for a number of years. It is now cited by Trotskyists as evidence of a “Stalinist” campaign to smear the P.O.U.M. as fascist agents. Jeffrey Meyers, a biographer of George Orwell, called it “a vicious book” and Orwell himself dedicated lengthy passages in his novel “Homage to Catalonia” to blaming the Communists for similar accusations, and for the loss in Spain as a whole. The pamphlet has become a tool to denounce the heroic role of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) in the Spanish Civil War as counterrevolutionary.

The copy of the full pamphlet in its 1938 form on the Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) comes with an editor’s note that cites the original author apparently claiming the work and its contents are a complete forgery:

“Forty years later, in a work about the Spanish civil war (Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939, III, 78-79), Soria himself stated – without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation  – that ‘the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence’ and the whole story was ‘an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism’” (Marxists Internet Archive).

It’s worth noting MIA are not the first ones to use these quotes to “disprove” the Soria pamphlet. Many scholarly and non-scholarly books have used them as well.

As the MIA editor’s note shows, the original source for these quotes from Soria is the book “Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939.” This source is not available to me. However, I did find another source that details the full unedited quotes by Soria which are being cited as proof his work is a forgery: the book “Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution” by Burnett Bolloten.

Within this source there is enough information to argue that the way the quotes from Soria are often presented is quite deceptive. Here I will present only what are actual quoted words from Soria, and omit the words and phrases MIA inserted between them. The first quote that is commonly used is that Soria said that:

“[…] the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence.”

The second quote, which MIA and others present as being about “the whole story,” (more on this later) meaning about the entire contents of Soria’s pamphlet, says:

“[…] an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

These passages in quotes are the only portions of the editor’s note that were actually said by Soria. Now I will present the full and unedited Soria quotes in their original context as cited in Bolloten’s book. All portions in brackets [ ] without the annotation “E.S.” appeared in brackets in the original Bolloten text. The first full quote reads as follows:

“Forty years later however, in an attempt to exculpate the Spanish Communists from responsibility for the death of Nin, he [Soria – E.S.] stated that ‘the accusations leveled against Nin in Spain in the form of the couplet: ‘Where is Nin? In Salamanca or Berlin?’ were ‘purely and simply…an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.’”

So Soria was not, in fact, talking about his pamphlet, but rather the story surrounding the disappearance of Andrés Nin, the founder of the P.O.U.M., where he was freed from prison by fascist agents. Soria then blames the NKVD for the death of Nin, which is what he dismissed as “an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

Bolloten even goes on to condemn Soria for his “attempt…to exonerate the PCE by shifting responsibility for the crusade against the P.O.U.M. and for the disappearance of Nin to the phenomenon of ‘Stalinism’” (507). So the Soria quote specifically speaks of the charges against Nin and one story of his disappearance.

The MIA editor’s note however, frames this quote as being about “the whole story,” implying that it’s about his original work and all charges of the P.O.U.M. acting as agents (either de-facto agents or actual spies) of Franco or Hitler:

“the whole story was ‘an extension…[Soria quote continues as above].”

As we can clearly see however, in this first quote Soria was not talking about his pamphlet or the “whole story,” but specifically about the alleged liberation of Andrés Nin from prison by fascist agents, which Soria recounts in the pamphlet, though he does not mention the involvement of the Gestapo but rather implies that fascist agents may have been involved.

Bolloten then cites the second Soria quote used by MIA in the same paragraph, which contains even greater pronounced differences with the MIA citation. The original says:

“On the one hand, the charge that the leaders of the POUM, among them Andrés Nin, were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence. On the other hand, although the leaders of the POUM were neither agents of Franco nor agents of the Gestapo, it is true that their relentless struggle against the Popular Front played the game nolens volens of the Caudillo [General Franco]” (Bolloten 507).

So despite Soria claiming that the charges of the P.O.U.M. leadership, including Nin, being fascist spies was without evidence, he still blamed the P.O.U.M. for taking an ultra-left position and undermining the popular front in Spain, which still rendered de-facto service to the fascists. In other words, even if the Trotskyists and ultra-lefts in the P.O.U.M. were completely innocent of all charges and were not agents of the Gestapo or Franco, they “only” offered de-facto, and not de-jure, service to Franco.

The phrasing here says that even though he claims there is no evidence of the P.O.U.M. leadership being fascist agents and spies, Soria does not deny the fact that they rendered service to Franco, using the phrase, “nolens volens,” meaning “whether willing or unwilling.”

The editor’s note on MIA omits this second phrase for obvious reasons. There are a number of other interesting points regarding these full, unedited quotes that are worth pointing out.

In these quotes Soria does not denounce his original work – merely the specific charge that the P.O.U.M. leadership were spies of the Gestapo and Franco. He does say it was “impossible to adduce the slightest evidence,” which can be said to imply that the documents and sources he cites in the pamphlet are, at least in part, forgeries. However, this is not stated specifically. In fact, Soria does not mention his work at all! This is implicitly stated by the editor’s note on the MIA page, which states that Soria spoke “without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation.” His “role,” of course, was the pamphlet!

To some extent MIA makes a valid point about Soria never mentioning his own “role” in the charges that he claims was a “fabrication…[without] the slightest evidence.” Assuming the work is a complete fabrication, Soria never claimed to have been coerced to write the pamphlet, and never mentions an outside party forcing him to do so. Therefore, even in the case that it is a complete forgery, until there is proof that Soria authored it under the influence of an outside force, the blame must be placed not on the Soviet Union, “Stalinism” or the PCE, but on Soria the author for allegedly forging the evidence in his articles in the first place, and allowing those articles to be published as a pamphlet.

It’s also worth repeating that though Soria expresses his belief that the charges against the “P.O.U.M. leadership” being fascist spies was false and without evidence, this does not mean everyone in the P.O.U.M. was innocent of such activities, and Soria says explicitly that the P.O.U.M.’s actions still helped Hitler and Franco, even if unwillingly. One must ask then: how does this in any way exonerate the P.O.U.M.?

Furthermore, why Soria should choose forty years after the publication of the original document, long after such a “confession” of forgery could have had any effect whatsoever on the anti-fascist war in Spain or its outcome is unclear, thought it must be pointed out that these words were said after Soria became sympathetic to the Eurocommunism of the PCF, and during the era of “de-Stalinization,” where the virtues of making slanderous statements and denunciations regarding the Stalin era were looked upon with favor both inside and outside the Soviet Union. The pace for this was set by the many utter falsehoods uttered by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress, and the decades of revisionism that followed.

CONCLUSION: Until there is more direct evidence that Georges Soria denounced his articles and the documents he cited in them as forgeries, there is no reason to “dismiss” them from consideration as evidence, and though he later claimed the charges against the P.O.U.M. leadership were baseless and there was no evidence for them, implying that at least part of the original work was false and/or mistaken, the conclusion that Soria admitted his work and all of its contents were complete forgeries cannot be supported by the existing facts.

https://www.marxists.org/history/spain/writers/soria/trotskyism_in_service_of_franco.htm

Happy 135th Birthday Joseph Stalin: Celebrate a Life Lived in Service to the People!

December 21st, 2013

This is the Espresso Stalinist, inviting you all to keep this time of year a time of celebration, love, revolution and socialism. This is the true meaning of this day. Thank you, Koba. Thank you for all you did for us.

Thank You, Koba

by Charlie Mann

I could never have known
That I would learn so much
From just one man.
By now, he is merely
Words,
On paper and
on screens,
Perhaps the odd bust that
Survived repression;

But no living man has
Encouraged me,
Chastised me,
Taught me,
Emboldened me,
Given me
Courage,
Confidence,
Strength and
Determination
quite so much -

I salute you,
Tovarich,
Our revolution lives on.

Link to Poem

Happy 135th Birthday Joseph Stalin: Celebrate a Life Lived in Service to the People!


IMG_0217

Stalin_1902


young-Bolshevik-Stalin


01w/11/arve/G2356/005


1465987_10151819721457826_1912433515_o
1512638_10151819722177826_576682349_n
stalin
1525202_10151819722717826_26100703_n
1488890_10151819723302826_1365587649_n
1511049_10151819723867826_1128544534_n


Tehran-Conference2
00733518.jpg


Stalin1952

1509851_10151819725212826_1207788968_n
1526645_563815900372632_75816373_n

Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist): Marcos’ Crusade Against the Revolutionary Perspective

Zapatista flag

Introduction

Twelve years ago, a revolt broke out in the south of Mexico, among the poorest and most oppressed in a poor country. The revolt was timed to mark the coming into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994, which opened Mexico to unbridled exploitation by U.S. imperialism. The rebels seized five towns in the largely indigenous state of Chiapas. Calling themselves the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), after Zapata, the peasant leader of the Mexican revolution of 1910, their revolt galvanized the popular forces throughout Mexico and gained the respect of progressive forces throughout the world. Though the Zapatistas soon withdrew from the five towns under pressure of the Mexican army, they waged a low-level guerrilla war for several years and took part in mass political campaigns.

But the hopes that the Zapatistas aroused in Mexico have gone largely unfulfilled. Among other things, the Zapatistas, and particularly their leader, Subcomandante Marcos, not only refused to take up a vanguard role in the fight against the Mexican bourgeoisie, but denied the need for such a vanguard at all. Also, Marcos now portrays violence as the dark side of human history, ignoring its transforming role in the class (and national) struggle. As the Mexican Marxist-Leninists describe in this article, Marcos’ pronouncements have led the Zapatistas deeper into a position of support for the reformist and social-democratic forces in Mexico.

At the same time, certain reservations must be made as to this article. First, the indigenous peoples in Mexico are treated here as ‘ethnic’ groups rather than as oppressed nationalities (particularly in section VI: ‘The problem of the land and the ethnic question’). To ignore the fact that the indigenous peoples in Mexico who live in their communities and have been oppressed since the time of the Spanish conquest are oppressed nationalities is to downplay their role and the significance of their struggle.

Furthermore, there is a weakness in reference to the indigenous struggle, particularly the struggle for land, and its relation to the overall revolutionary struggle. In the last section of this article, the Mexican Marxist-Leninists state that, even if the indigenous people are granted territorial autonomy and carry out an agrarian reform, ‘Without the working class coming to power, it is clear that even with such a reform, sooner rather than later things will get worse with the differentiation of classes in this area, a product of the laws of the capitalist market.’ This is true, but in the sense that any reform can be reversed as long as the bourgeoisie continues to hold state power. The point, however, is not to use this fact to reduce the importance of such reforms, but to use these reforms to strengthen the consciousness and organisation of the working class and all popular classes to build toward the fight for revolution.

With this reservation, we recommend this analysis to readers worldwide as part of the fight to uphold the Marxist-Leninist world outlook against all attempts to oppose it ideologically.

George Gruenthal

When the EZLN’s struggle broke out in January of 1994, our party, and we are sure all revolutionaries in our country, hailed this event; we could see the magnitude of the armed movement and the radicalism of its slogans, could appreciate that this had every possibility of becoming the pole that would unite the class struggle and contribute enormously to awakening the working masses of town and country from their lethargy. We stand firm in our conviction that the EZLN was restoring the armed struggle of the masses by their actions. Unfortunately it was soon evident that the Zapatistas reversed themselves, they went back on their slogans, redrew their project, they discredited the revolutionary struggle and they retreated into the arms of social-democratic concepts to evade their responsibilities, rooting themselves in the pettiness of the petty bourgeois patriotic dream.

The Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist) made public its sympathy with the armed Zapatista movement in a series of communiqués that called on them not to turn down the volume in the struggle of the masses and to make use of the effervescence and high spirits generated with the perspective of a national convergence of popular opposition to the regime and of the need for a Democratic and Popular National Constituent Assembly. Our efforts in that period in regard to the struggle of the masses were centred on raising that perspective.

Our organization proposed without the least hesitancy or the slightest fear of the fact that ‘others’ were the ones who provoked the fissure in the system, that the EZLN would be in a position to become the unifying factor of social discontent. We understood that the EZLN was in a position to put itself at the head of a powerful mass movement that went beyond its initial demands, which were already greater than those that they are raising today, since this was a war against the regime. When we discussed this with the Zapatistas, they stuck to their line of ‘not being the vanguard’ as a justification for leaving the mass movement without leadership. Now that the opportunists and the right-wing are congratulating them on such a line (moreover preaching it on every occasion), one must remember that this has caused a great deal of damage to the mass movement, shrinking it and diluting it for some time.

This is a line with serious consequences, for which the Zapatistas are directly responsible. It is a bitter truth that they cannot hide, no matter how much they try in their sweet-sounding speeches and campaigns. Particularly because the masses in the country to a certain degree were expecting orientation, directives and examples of consistent struggle.

The changes in the EZLN’s political line are not new, since the democratic convention of 1994 when they handed over leadership of the mass movement which they had convened to the bourgeois intelligentsia and social-democracy, rejecting the forces that were most consistent in defending the revolutionary line; there were many other facts of that nature, as were shown later. They already demonstrated a continuous abandonment of the tasks imposed by the situation generated by the uprising, which was: to contribute to the revolutionary struggle.

With the Zapatista march to the Federal District [Mexico City] we witnessed how the leadership of the EZLN and their supporters reached a peak in their crusade against the revolutionary perspective, to the satisfaction of the ruling class; naturally the class struggle does not stop at Marcos’s will.

In the Zapatistas’ campaign with their march throughout the country, and especially because of the interviews Marcos granted to Monsivais, Scherer and García Márquez, the zeal with which he sounded off against the revolutionary struggle became clear, without stopping to take account of the major significance of this in the emancipation of the exploited, without taking into account the contributions of the revolutionary movement. He identified himself with the slanderous, blackmailing and reactionary criticism of the bourgeoisie. The matter cannot be simply forgotten; we are obliged to give an answer from the trenches of those of us who have not fallen into the traps of bourgeois democracy. If we now return to this once again it is because of the Zapatista’s need to hitch themselves to such a policy that is so unfortunate for the exploited and oppressed masses of the country. Monsivais (yes, that intellectual enemy of the university student movement and of everything that rings of mass struggle outside of the bourgeois constitutional order) in an interview congratulated Marcos for the fact that the EZLN had gone over to civilised positions; he branded the initial objectives of the Zapatista struggle as delirious, but when the line changed, he was delighted. Marcos agreed with him without batting an eye and they were all happy. Monsivais was pleased with Marcos and Marcos reinforced Monsivais. In spite of all this, our party maintains that the slogans to which the struggle of the EZLN has limited itself as outlined in the San Andrés accords are completely valid, even if they would not provide a complete solution to the problem. At the time we put them forward, what has changed is the form of promoting them and their projection into the class struggle; now they have become the final objective of the Zapatista movement.

With the aim of rejecting revolutionary criticism, the Zapatistas through Marcos have a consistent formula in declaring that that is what they have always fought for, that others either were relics of ‘old conceptions,’ or even worse, others had made bad interpretations of their objectives. Put this way it sounds irrefutable; they deny what they said before and make one believe that they have taken a step foreword into the political environment in which they now travel, surrounded by social democrats and petty bourgeois cretinism.

This is their favourite manner of rejecting criticism of their political inconsistency and the game they are playing with the social democrats by discrediting the revolutionary movement in front of the masses and nullifying its action.

I. The revolutionary struggle and Marcos the rebel

Marcos stated that it was his contact with the indigenous communities that was the reason for losing his revolutionary convictions, calling those convictions a ‘loss of the vocation of death. This sounds very humanitarian and romantic, but with this he hands over all his contingents and followers to a life dedicated to making the capitalist system into a regime of exploitation ‘with a human face,’ and from then on any another struggle deserves to be rejected.

In our view it was not contact with the communities that made him ‘understand’ the new course of the struggle, but his incapacity to supersede the class nature of the movement to give him greater perspective. Marcos went into the jungle as a revolutionary element; the determining factor of his degenerating ideologically was in the weakness of his formation (as he himself recognised), the inability of the leadership, on the basis of the extremely tragic situation of the indigenous masses, to politicise them based on a proletarian outlook, and in the process of the movement, the flirtation with social democracy and the internal and external pressures have influenced them more, finally leading to the open rejection of the revolutionary struggle.

According to Marcos in his interview with Julio Scherer García, ‘The revolutionary tends to become a politician and the social rebel does not stop being a social rebel.’ In this way he is proposing again a very well-known thesis from the period of the guerrilla movements of the 1970s, particularly preached by the anarchist groups of that time, that ‘power corrupts’; that is, the masses should reject the seizure of power, they should take the means of production into their hands (which is really a trap in the class struggle for power). Even worse, the masses would be unable to take the affairs of the country into their own hands, to take power, because everything would end in corruption and the failure of every project; they have no confidence in the power of the masses to overcome and finally resolve any attempt to move backward in the class struggle. The Zapatistas say they ‘reject being the vanguard’; their rejection is more than that, they reject the revolutionary struggle even without being the vanguard.

Of course, Marcos is not that consistent, because in his interview with Carlos Monsivais he stated: ‘we are a serious revolutionary movement,’ although from his later rejection, it has become totally clear to all that the leader of the EZLN and its structure has decided to exchange revolutionary speeches for peace.

Returning to his interview, with Scherer and with Gabriel García Márquez, the one which Subcomandante Marcos used to rave against the revolutionaries, he made this a defining point of his social-democratic position by stating that it is not necessary to seize power, that power must be left to those who already have it, as this is how it is in the world. Who does not know that the upper classes have the power? Who does not know that in Mexico the financial oligarchy rules? Who does not know that the politics of the legal parties is the politics of the big bourgeoisie? Such senseless talk by the leadership of such an important movement is shameful.

In social activity, what is not political nowadays? Fundamentally, the Zapatista discourse tries to alienate the masses from the political struggle, under the pretext that everything political is corrupt, without putting this in class terms, that is, without differentiating between bourgeois politics with all its hues and proletarian politics. One must state dryly, Marcos is taking up social democratic politics of the left and rejecting revolutionary politics.

Certainly, revolutionaries propose to organise the masses so that they can wage political struggle, take power and transform their reality in all facets of social life, contributing historically to the popular struggles so that the masses gain certain more or less immediate objectives, but above all so that they can raise their level of consciousness and increase their forces in the struggle against their oppressors. While the Zapatistas, at first very quietly, but in the end completely openly, propose to assimilate the bourgeois slogan of making the masses people who should only take part politically in questions that have nothing to do with political power and the material base on which it rests, the ownership of the means of production. At another point of this Zapatista litany, they try to identify the radicalisation of the movements with defeat: ‘we will not force the movement to the point that it leads to defeat.’ This seems like a call to dignity with which the student movement confronted the regime; the background of this was that they refused to deepen the struggle for fear of repression, an attitude that leads to defeatism, but which also touches on dirty blackmail of the masses with the supposed ‘risks’ to force them to take down their banners.

With regard to the socialist perspective in Mexico, the Zapatista discourse followed the same patterns of classic social democratic, revisionist and big bourgeois language; in agreement with them, it identified socialism with the time of revisionism in power, when the revolutionary socialist processes degenerated into state capitalism from the middle of the 20th century until its complete bankruptcy a decade ago. We revolutionaries accept defeats in the class struggle of the proletariat in the process of overcoming all the historic situations and the errors that confronted the peoples with the return of wage slavery, with the idea that the working masses themselves and their broader participation in all levels of struggle will block their moves. We do not ask for the understanding of the oppressors because we do not receive gold from Moscow, we do not call on the representatives of the bourgeoisie who try to make us believe that there is no longer a revolutionary struggle. We call on the masses to exercise the revolutionary struggle to transform present society. We continue to be conscious of the fact that the class struggle is the motive force of history.

II. Revolutionary Violence

Violence is a fact of the class struggle. Given the antagonisms, social classes and even more those who have a revolutionary perspective always resort to the criticism of arms. Marcos, who embarked on a violent movement in response to the violence of the oppressors, now comes to give lessons of repentance, ‘Violence is always useless, but one does not understand this until one exercises it or suffers from it’ (interview with Scherer). One should not spit into the wind. The history of humanity has advanced by this ‘useless’ deed. What happened to the revolutions of the slaves, the serfs, the peasants, the bourgeoisie, the working class in history? What about the revolution for independence of 1810, the revolution of 1910-17, or the revolutionary guerrilla traditions in the history of our country? With his romanticism Marcos takes us back to the old outmoded bourgeois conception of violence as a dark symbol of human history, its black side, denying again any class distinction between the reactionary violence of the oppressor classes and the revolutionary violence of the dispossessed classes. And he continues hammering, ‘clearly a soldier, I include myself among them, is an absurd and irrational man, because he has to resort to violence to convince someone’ (interview with Scherer). A soldier, we say, is someone in arms in the service of a social class, his action is determined by the needs of the class or sector that has put him there or for which he has stood up. Even the generals in power in Latin America are clearly maintained by the needs of the local oppressor classes and of course by the burning needs of the imperialists, but not by their so-called ‘evil nature.’ The Zapatistas used arms not to convince, but to assert their interests and to put a halt to the increasing repression and extermination to which they had been subjected for many years. This is something that they should not forget; the peoples of the Lacandon jungle have an urgent need to resort to self-defence against the big landowners and the State.

In relation to other guerrilla groups, with the idea of not only questioning ultra-left errors or positions, but of rejecting the armed struggle, Marcos said that, ‘it is not ethical that all means are justified’ (interview with García Márquez). This is an old trick to which the ruling classes have resorted since the beginning of the Mexican revolution of 1910 to discredit the armed struggle.

But this is not the end. ‘He who must resort to arms to assert his ideas is very poor in ideas’ (interview with Scherer). That is to hit your head against the wall; it is not just using a phrase of the regime to combat the armed struggle, but the beginning of its abandonment, prettified by a good dose of humanitarianism. Marcos says he is a follower of Zapata, but how could one understand Zapata without the armed movement that he led?

One must remember that the masses resort to armed struggle, and especially to its highest form, the armed insurrection, not simply because of their desperate situation, but after a long process of struggles until they understand the significance of their aspirations and the need to assert them in a revolutionary way, confronting the ruling classes, being prepared to shed their blood in the struggle for their liberation.

In this way, translating the Zapatista logic into plain language one could say that because exploitation is a certainty in this world, and oppression is inevitable, one must convince the whole world of this for everything to change. But we do not try to impose our ideas of freedom by force of arms, because then they will become very poor ideas, or poor ideas. Such gibberish is contagious!

In summary, he would have us believe that open revolutionary struggle has been superseded and from now on we should limit ourselves to peaceful struggle. It is notorious that the position of the EZLN is now fully identified with classical liberalism of the bourgeois democracies.

They have tried to frighten the regime by stating that if the peace process is not begun, other armed groups will arise; yes, they will arise with or without you. This is the result of the sharpening of class contradictions, foreseen in general terms by the development of capitalism, and seen concretely by the anti-popular and pro-imperialist politics of the regime.

III. The Zapatista View of Capitalism

To the praise of the bourgeoisie and the shame of the tradition of struggle of our suffering Mexican people, the Zapatistas have brought us an old and stale slogan, ‘We do not believe that all businessmen are thieves, for some have earned their wealth by honourable and honest means’ (interview with Scherer). No, this is not a Christian sermon, where the thief is accused and the saint is rewarded. Capitalist exploitation is not simply a question of morals or robbery, but of social relations of production established between the owners of the means of production in private property and those who do not own anything but their own labour power to sell to the former. ‘Honest’ means of producing wealth do not exist; one is either a direct or indirect exploiter. If Marcos had to give a single example of his thesis, he would be faced with the same thing as all intellectuals of the system, a complete absurdity. The humblest of the bosses who crosses himself (before the Virgin of Guadalupe) must always exploit his workers to the maximum, the banker will demand the highest profit, the investor will seek the highest interest, the landowner wants to maximise his rent, the cattle raiser will seek the greatest profits. It is the law of the system.

Marcos asks for incentives for cooperatives such as that of Tephé [an indigenous community north of Mexico City which has built a water park on their land, attracting Mexican tourists – translator’s note] and ‘that their business potential be recognised, giving them advantages and possibilities in the market which are offered to the big hotel owners’ (interview with Scherer).

Well, to follow his logic of vitalising those sectors, we would first have to forget that the State today is in the service of the big monopolies. Who does not know that? Once this ‘simple detail’ is forgotten, with the best of results, assuming competition between hotel monopolies, what would be achieved is to create a new monopoly that would fight to crush the small businessmen or other small cooperatives. Why? Because the search for the greatest profits reigns, because without this they would succumb to the competition, because the social relations of capitalist production in their monopoly phase reign.

In case one tries to make them into small or medium-sized businesses with financial stability, they would again be faced with the constant threat of being devoured or subordinated to the more powerful ones. The independent companies in a monopolised branch create a factor of instability for the companies that dominate that branch and the independent companies always come into conflict with the prices and profits of the monopolies. By forgetting this Marcos fell into the trap of the regime which consists in promoting (in appearance) policies favourable to the small bourgeoisie, which in fact are subject to the whirlpool of big capital.

However it may be under the capitalist mode of production, by the law of the extraction of surplus value and the law of accumulation, the cooperatives in the Zapatista program will end up exploiting labour power, as the Pascual, the Excelsior and many others, or being cruelly subjected to elimination.

In the case of the small bourgeoisie and the cooperativists the main task is to integrate them into the democratic and revolutionary struggle to transform the present relations of production and to integrate them into a productive life where they do not become exploiters of the worker.

But this latter is not the expectation designed by the Zapatistas; for them what is at stake are: ‘the possibilities of constructing another type of relation, even within the market, which do not represent savage capitalism where some are devoured by others’ (interview with Scherer). This is also not new; it is a repetition of the social-democratic proposal for a ‘third way.’ Imperialist Europe is experiencing it; however the ‘domestication of the forces of capitalism’ has not brought about more than a change in the form of speech that obscures the significance of the capitalist market. The capitalists do not make economic or military war because they are evil, but only out of the need to survive. It is difficult to believe that Marcos really does not know this, or that the rest of the social-democrats, who are aiming to win the sympathies of the oligarchy, do not know this.

It is important to point out our differences especially on the question of the relations between the national oligarchy and imperialism, for the Zapatistas through Marcos recognise that the former will be devoured by the imperialists. In this sense, the dynamics of imperial rule in general always aims to consent to the national oligarchies, for the sake of being allowed to be guaranteed in the strategic sectors fundamental to consolidate their international control. The imperial rule over our country is based on the strategic alliance of subordination between the international financial oligarchy and the national financial oligarchy.

The Zapatista interpretation of capitalism is not as novel as some proclaim; those who state that Marxism is obsolete revive the most backward economist and populist theories, flavouring them with social-democratic discourse, but they have nothing new to offer. All they do is reveal their own class nature, sticking to them to this, they try to generalise the slightest social development.

The social-democratic discourse in the EZLN’s version follows: ‘recognizing differences’ are the new magic words to obliterate the existing contradictions. The meaning of this is very elastic, and acceptable to almost everyone; the Zapatistas speak of recognizing us as all being different and living in harmony, in the land of humankind. But humankind lives according to historic patterns which cannot be discarded; we recognise the differences between possessors and dispossessed, between exploited and exploiters, between oppressed and oppressors, but do we accept them? This is incompatible with our perspective of struggle.

Finally, we believe it is our obligation to give the lie to a grave error in the lessons that Marcos draws from the history of the 20th century, when he says: ‘When we declare that the new century and the new millennium are the millennium and century of differences, we are making a fundamental break with the 20th century: the great struggle of the hegemonic powers. The last struggle that we remember, between the socialist and the capitalist camp, led to two world wars. If this is not recognised, the world will end up being an archipelago in continuous war within and outside its territories. It will not be possible to live in this way’ (interview with Scherer). We should make clear three points:

  1. The struggle for world hegemony is a present-day matter, in which all the capitalist powers spurred on by their great transnational monopolies are involved, but also one in which North American power prevails.
  2. The world wars originated from the nature of the imperialist phase of capitalism for world domination; the First World War began before the proletarian revolution of 1917, the second had its cause in German expansionism that came to question English rule. To say that these wars were due to contradictions between socialism and capitalism is to follow in the footsteps of all that nebulous propaganda that tried to cleanse the capitalist powers of blame, above all the Western powers, who were the ones that pushed Germany (in the case of the Second World War) to fight against the former USSR.
  3. The world is already an archipelago at war for a new division of spheres of influence around the great Atlantic Alliance (NATO). We are seeing the scenes of war constantly shifting from one point of the globe to another; each time the imperialists run into more difficulties. The Atlantic Alliance is trying to prolong its existence by fighting against the countries that are not incorporated into it, but its internal contradictions, especially between Europe and North America, are heightened and turn into bitter disputes over who will get the greater share of the multiple booties of war.
IV. Marcos and his idea of legality

‘We call on one of the forces to assume its role, the Congress of the Union’ (interview with Monsivais). Already the ideologist of present-day Zapatismo has forgotten the role that to date the merchants of the chambers play in the life of the country, they have already forgotten the role played by parliament to negate the EZLN. We see here how they have linked themselves to an organ that is not of the people, but of the owning classes, an instrument of bourgeois democracy. This call is dangerous not only from the viewpoint of the search for a solution to their demands, but of the illusions that it created in the masses, since it promotes confidence in an organ of the dictatorship of capital. And what do the Zapatistas now say with regard to the consummation of the Indigenous Law? What role did the Congress of the Union play? Things will go badly by promoting such illusions, since despite the facts the Zapatistas go to the extreme of stating that there are only three people who show bad will towards them. After this they will again flirt with the forces of the left to dazzle them once more with new demonstrations of their legalism.

But earlier, in his notorious interviews he has already stated without blushing in the least that:

‘For us it is very important that the nation should say: ‘I assume it and I put it in writing; I make history. I recognize that everything that has taken place before was not good. Not only do I recognize this, but I will make every effort to ensure that this will not happen again’ (interview with Monsivais). Oh Marcos! Who leads the nation, little brother? The fact that things were not good sounds like the classic bourgeois lament: let’s start with a new slate. To put it this way is to place the solution of the indigenous and peasant question in the hands of the ruling classes, giving the message to all the people that this is also a viable solution for their demands.

‘The EZLN is not asking that the whole Army must leave before negotiations. We ask Fox to answer this question: Are you willing to enter into negotiations and to abandon a military solution? Are you the commander of the Army?’ The Zapatistas here fall into Fox’s populism. Fox is a representative of the oligarchy, his actions are subordinate to the strategy of bourgeois domination, and obviously, to the pressure that the masses can exercise against that. Therefore, it is not the will of the president that will resolve such a serious situation.

In his interview with Scherer, he says: ‘We propose to try to convince this government, not only Fox, that they can sit down with the certainty that there will be results if they take this seriously.’ We have seen enough of this already; now it is the ‘good will’ of the Zapatistas added to a policy of shady deals worthy of professional mercenaries.

V. The Zapatista view of the masses and their struggles

The Zapatista concept of the masses and their struggle is not notably different from the classical social-democratic view. Why should it be? For the Zapatistas society, more than being divided into classes, is divided into the State, the military and civilians. The Zapatistas never call on the working masses and the popular sectors for their support, but on ‘civil society’, that broad spectrum of oppressor and oppressed classes in the old Hegelian language that has long ago been superceded by Marxism. However, it has again been dredged up, first by social democracy to prevent the masses from looking at classes and to try to unite what cannot be united in the class struggle, rather than to do the opposite, to continuously help to separate the workers and peasants from the bourgeoisie and their pernicious influence.

They are especially trying to raise the banner of the so-called ‘new social actors’, who have been brought into the struggle in the last decades and who have been exalted by social-democracy in opposition to the working class in their role of vanguard. These new actors, with their special problems, who are part of various classes or class sectors, are influenced by openly petty bourgeois and deeply individualist positions and forms of life. They are trying to take them aside to a marginalised struggle from the strategic point of view, alienating them from their exploited and oppressed condition by the system in most cases. In civilian society, as has been shown above, the EZLN encourages parliamentary cretinism, reformism and bourgeois and petty bourgeois constitutionalism, and all kinds of actions that ‘do not shake up’ the masses or lead them to confront their oppressors in a revolutionary manner.

A serious mistake that Marcos made in the Federal District was when he called on the students to concentrate on the studies and to postpone their struggles until they had gotten their degrees. Immediately the opportunist sectors and reaction applauded this ‘brilliant’ suggestion. Of course this is not the first time that the Zapatistas fell into the opportunist swamp in the student movement; during the strike, at a specific moment they gave their support to the moderate groups. We call on the students not to pay attention to such nonsense; our party calls on them to fight, to absorb the great experiences in their demonstrations and to push for revolutionary action from their trenches, so that at the end of their studies they have a clearer consciousness and broader horizons of struggle.

VI. The problem of the land and the ethnic question

The central problem of the Zapatista struggle, as much as they may present it as an indigenous question, is materially speaking the problem of the land, and sociologically one of ethnicity.

The indigenous communities were systematically pushed deep into the jungle by the landowners, for whom the main thing is to have them available as labour power for the harshest tasks. (In the same way other indigenous peoples in our country were pushed into the most inaccessible and unhealthy areas.) The real solution to the problems of the Zapatista communities must begin with a broad agrarian reform that returns to these people their former territories and the infrastructure needed to overcome their historic backwardness, as well as granting them territorial autonomy. Without the working class coming to power, it is clear that even with such a reform, sooner rather than later things will get worse with the differentiation of classes in this area, a product of the laws of the capitalist market. Besides let us not forget the existence of a pole of economic and political power which will crush them even if Zapatismo obtains certain considerable benefits.

Marcos maintains that ‘the fundamental thing in our struggle is the demand for indigenous rights and culture’ (interview with Monsivais). This is a false point; all this would be lost without material livelihood for the indigenous peasants. First they must own the means of production, and then the demand for indigenous territorial autonomy must be raised, in order to raise the ethnic groups in the general development of their life. If one raises only the demand for territorial autonomy, even if the bourgeoisie today does not want to yield on this, they may do this under certain circumstances. However, that autonomy by itself would still be amputated because it would be limited to an area with an independent administration with political powers for the ethnic groups as such, leaving intact the large private property in the land, and of course, the indigenous ethnic groups could not develop with such an enemy at their side. Besides, there would remain unsolved the problem of what the Zapatistas understand as rights and culture, since in the present-day terms that they have been using, it is a question of the right to exploit each other.

This petty bourgeois view of the indigenous problem has given rise to indigenous theory, sometimes presented as a problem of races. But it is rather a question of the systematic oppression of the ethnic groups in our country, expropriating their land eliminating all the agents who impede the capitalist relations of exploitation.

Although racism is an undeniable fact, it parts from those concepts. If we look outside our country, we see that the Japanese, who are not a white race, are accepted as such because they are an advanced capitalist society. Also it is not a problem of races since even the indigenous people have assimilated mestizo, black and white elements into their social activity as an ethnic group; they share a common life and a similar psychology, but not necessarily the same blood. Nowadays there is no more pure blood among the ethnic groups, and in spite of this the problem persists, and the ethnic groups also persist as historic social beings.

On the other hand, the Zapatistas have forgotten the thousands and thousands of indigenous people (separated not just in the last generation, but even several generations ago) who take part in the general social activity of the country, and are immersed in all the strata of capitalist society, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed. White, mestizo, Indian, black, Arabs, Asians, etc. make up the blood stream of our country. Moreover, without leaving this question aside, one must analyse the breakdown of social classes: bourgeois, proletarians, peasants, semi-proletarians and other middle strata. In the same way the ethnic groups have their class breakdown, in accord with the place that their members occupy in production: as exploiters, peasants, peons, day-labourers (agricultural proletariat) and artisans. They are subjected to a worse situation because of their ethnic oppression caused by the ruling class. These qualities should guide us in participating in their struggles, fundamentally their class nature, the particularity of the ethnic social organisation.

In the view of our party, even though the problem of the land and the question of ethnic territorial autonomy are problems which cannot be postponed, the guarantee that the ethnic problem would be fundamentally and decisively solved is by incorporating the ethnic groups into the struggle for socialism.

Our party does not reject a peaceful solution favourable to the Zapatista problem and to the mass movement itself, but this will not come from the defeatist line presently put forward, but by propelling the struggle of the masses. It is not a matter of simply signing a just peace agreement, but (if necessary) of making a dignified retreat in the armed struggle, without rejecting this, nor the class struggle in general.

As long as the Zapatistas continue along the line of abandoning the consistent struggle and are tied to all those groups in so-called civil society that are unable to take up a serious fight against the system, the results will not be favourable to the masses that they mobilise.

The Zapatistas and their leadership should see the nature of the capitalist system as it is, not in the light of indigenous subjectivism, and break with the concepts that seek to unleash the forces of capital within the ethnic groups. Otherwise, the tiger will make them swallow the mirrors and not the other way around as, they once preached.

Translated from the Spanish by George Gruenthal

Source

‘If You Do Not Follow the Order You Will Be Shot’ – New facts about the murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg

GermanRevolution1918

On the Eightieth Anniversary of the Martyrdom
of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg

Eighty years ago on 15th January, 1919 the leadership of the Communist Party of Germany, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, were brutally assassinated. It was a momentous loss for the German and international working class movement and it had widespread and long-term repercussions. The two leaders adhered to the revolutionary trend within the German Social-Democratic Party which had developed shortly after the turn of the century.

For the first time in Marxist literature Karl Liebknecht took up the question of militarism in the imperialist period in his book Militarism and Anti-Militarism which came out in 1907 and which led him to being sentenced to imprisonment. As a member of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies and the Reichstag he exposed the bosses of the military industries headed by Krupp for their warmongering policies and called for international proletarian solidarity as the decisive weapon in the struggle against militarism. Liebknecht welcomed the 1905 Revolution in Russia and came into a sharp political clash with the revisionists, defending the general mass strike as a special proletarian means of struggle. He denounced the assistance given by the German government to tsarism which was engaged in the suppression of the revolution and called upon the German proletariat to emulate the struggle of the Russian workers.

At the beginning of the First World War he did not initially break with the discipline of the Social-Democratic Party, voting for war credits on August 4th, 1914. Liebknecht soon corrected his position and on 2nd December, 1914 he cast the sole vote against war credits. In a statement which was submitted to the Chairman of the Reichstag he characterised the war as one of annexation. This document was later circulated as an illegal leaflet. Even when drafted to the front, Liebknecht skilfully utilised his membership of the Prussian and Reichstag Chambers to continue the struggle. He adopted the Bolshevik slogan of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war. Together with Rosa Luxemburg he established the Spartacus group. From the rostrum of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies he called upon the Berlin proletariat to join the Mayday demonstration of 1916. In the course of this Liebknecht called for the overthrow of the government which was conducting an imperialist war : for this action he was arrested and sentenced by a military court to jail for four years. It was there that he learnt the news of the October Revolution.

Rosa Luxemburg was born in Poland in 1871 and lived and worked in Germany from 1898. She was an early opponent of the revisionist E. Bernstein, actively opposing the ministerialism of Millerand and the opportunist compromises with bourgeois parties. Her writings on these questions were collected in 1899 in Social Reform or Revolution? With regard to the split in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Rosa Luxemburg did not accept the Leninist views on the need to construct a proletarian party. Stalin noted that Luxemburg had declared for the Mensheviks, arguing that the Bolsheviks had tendencies to Blanquism and ultra-centralism. During the Russian Revolution of 1905-07 she drew closer to the Bolsheviks on many questions of the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. Rosa Luxemburg correctly understood the role of the working class as the decisive force of the revolution, recognised the need for an armed uprising against tsarism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Luxemburg expressed complete agreement with the Bolshevik view that the liberal bourgeoisie was a counter-revolutionary force and that the peasantry constituted a revolutionary class. Drawing on the experience of the 1905 revolution she supported the greatest possible development of the extra-parliamentary struggle of the masses and stressed the need to use the mass political strike. For her anti-militarist struggle she was imprisoned during the First World War.

In her major theoretical works on political economy Rosa Luxemburg presented a critique of capitalism and imperialism where the aggressive colonial policies were described; she upheld the view, however, that the accumulation of capital under capitalism was possible through the expansion of the sphere of exploitation of the non-capitalist sectors so that imperialism was defined as the struggle of the capitalist states for the non-capitalist environment. Despite her important theoretical contribution Rosa Luxemburg deviated from Marxism on a number of questions: to wit, on the denial of the right of national self-determination and an underestimation of the revolutionary potentialities of the peasantry.

From the beginning of the First World War she criticised the imperialist character of the war and the betrayal of the social-democratic leadership. As a founder and leader of the Spartacus League she authored a number of anti-war tracts. Luxemburg greeted the October revolution, commended the role of the Bolsheviks while incorrectly evaluating the Bolshevik tactics on the agrarian and national question, and the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. Her critiques of Bolshevik tactics have been widely advertised by the spokesmen of U.S. imperialism notwithstanding the fact that she retraced her steps on a number of questions relating to the Bolshevik revolution and made a turn towards Leninism defending the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Soviets in Germany.

Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were among the founders of the Communist Party of Germany which held its constituent congress from 30th December, 1918 to January 1, 1919. After the suppression of the Berlin workers’ uprising of January 1919, the ruling classes organised the brutal killings of the two communists on 15th January 1919. The roots of the murders lay in the secret accommodation reached between the right-wing socialist leader Chancellor Friedrich Ebert and General Groener which was established in November, 1918 ‘in order to prevent the spread of terroristic Bolshevism in Germany’. Bourgeois and socialist organs competed to hunt down the two revolutionaries. The spy office of the Reichstag Regiment founded by the Social-Democratic Party set a bounty of 100,000 marks on the heads of Liebknecht and Luxemburg. On the 13th January, 1919 two days before the murders the Social-Democratic Party paper Vorwärts carried a poem calling for the assassination of the two communists.The last verse of this ended:

Many hundred corpses in a row—
Proletarians!
Karl, Radek, Rosa and Co —
Not one of them is there, not one of them is there!
Proletarians!

It was not without foundation that John Heartfield was to craft the photomontage entitled ‘Fraternal greetings of the SDP’ in which the deathhead of Karl Liebknecht was depicted below the masthead of the SDP paper Vorwärts which was shown dripping with blood.

After the liberation of Berlin by the heroic Red Army in 1945 a participant of the murders was arrested and interrogated. His testimony sheds light on the final hours of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.

VS.

 

Secret
Copy No.1

4 October 1945,
N.205 cc

From the Deputy Chairman of the Council of the People’s Commissars of the USSR,

To Comrade V.M. Molotov,

I am forwarding for you an intimation of the military prosecutor of the Berlin garrison about the arrest and testimony of a participant to the murder of Rosa Luxemburg.

K. Gorshenin

The Military Prosecutor of the Berlin Garrison

13 September 1945

Secret

To the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Red Army Lt. General of Law

Comrade N.P. Afanasiev,

On 13 June 1945 the Berlin operative group of the NKVD arrested a participant of the murder of Rosa Luxemberg — Otto Runge (living under the documents of Rudolf Wilhelm), born 1875, hailing from Gestebize (on Oder), by nationality a German and by (class — trans.) origin a peasant, educated up to 8th class, member of the NSDP since 1933, living in Berlin at 22 Greifen-Gagenerstrasse. Since 1941 was living in retirement on pension and was not working anywhere.

The investigations revealed the following:

Unter officer of a cavalry division Otto Runge, on the orders of the commander of his battalion, on the 13th of January 1919, was sent along with 15 other soldiers of his battalion to hotel Eden (Berlin, Nurembergenstrasse No.30) to guard the regiment’s headquarter.

On the 15th of January, Captain Pabst, an officer of the Staff of the regiment gave Runge the order to personally stand guard, along with soldier Drager, at the main entrance of hotel Eden from 18.00 hours (Berlin time) onwards. At 20.00 Runge and Drager were not replaced at the post and on orders of General Hofman, who at that time was present at the headquarters of the regiment, they were left to guard the headquarters for an unspecified period of time.

At 20.45 a car stopped at the main entrance of hotel Eden with four officers and Rosa Luxemburg. The latter was led by the officers into the regimental headquarters. Approximately 10 minutes later a second car also stopped at the main entrance with three officers and Karl Liebknecht, who was led by these officers into the regimental headquarters.

At this time, having come to know about the arrest of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, people started to gather near hotel Eden.

After K.Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg were led into the regimental Pflugk-Hartung headquarters, captain Pflugk-Hartung approached Runge and asked : did he know who the man and the woman in civilian clothes brought in just then were, and when Runge answered in the negative, Pflugk-Hartung told Runge that they were Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, that they were pernicious revolutionaries and bandits who wanted to overthrow the rulers and seize power for themselves. Pflugk-Hartung then ordered Runge that when K. Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg come out of the hotel he must shoot them. Runge supposedly refused to do so on the pretext that a large number of people had gathered and he might slip and hurt some one else too. Subsequently Pflugk-Hartung went inside the headquarters and captain Pabst came out and gave the order to kill K. Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg by hitting them with the butt of the rifle, which Runge agreed to do. After Pabst left, lieutenant Kanaris came out and told Runge that if he did not carry out the orders i.e. kill K. Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg he himself would be shot. Kanaris also went inside the headquarters.

When Runge and Drager were left alone at the post, the latter told Runge that if he (Runge — trans.) did not carry out the orders then Drager himself will kill K. Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg with his bayonet. To which Runge replied that ‘the order has been given and I will carry it out’.

After a few minutes the director (his name is not established) of the hotel walked out of the main entrance. He was on the right, in the middle was R. Luxemburg and to the left was lieutenant Vogel, who pushed R. Luxemburg out of the hotel directly towards the guard Runge. Runge was prepared for the murder and with the full swing of the hand struck Luxemburg with the butt of the rifle on the left side of her face and shoulder, under the impact of which the latter fell to the ground, but was still alive and attempted to stand up. At this moment 4 soldiers came out of the hotel, and along with lieutenant Vogel dragged R. Luxemburg into the same car in which she had been brought to the hotel. They themselves got into the car. Vogel took out a pistol and in that very place shot Luxemburg in the head. Her corpse was carried away.

Subsequently, the following persons walked out of the hotel: captain-lieutenant Pflugk-Hartung, his brother, captain Pflugk-Hartung, Oberlieutenant Rithin, oberlieutenant (illegible in the original document), lieutenant Shultz, lieutenant Liepmann soldier Friedrich and among them was K. Liebknecht who was taken away by them in a car parked on the other side of the road.

After a whole Lieutenant Krul came to Runge at the post and ordered him to go immediately to the 2nd floor of the hotel and kill Wilhelm Pieck, the Editor of the Communist newspaper ‘Rote-Fahne’.

Krul brought Runge to the 2nd floor, where Wilhelm Pieck was standing in the corridor, and told Runge to shoot Wilhelm Pieck if he made a move. They wanted to fake a killing while attempting to escape while under detention.

When Runge and Pieck were left alone in the corridor, the latter turned to Runge and said ‘soldier do not shoot me, I have something more to convey to your command’, after which Runge led Wilhelm Pieck to the room of captain Pabst. After a few minutes Pabst led Pieck out into the corridor and ordered Runge to accompany the latter to the commandant’s office. On the way, supposedly, Runge let Wilhelm Pieck go, and returned to the headquarters and reported to Lieutenant Hervitz, that he, Runge, fell ill and had let Pieck go, as he could not accompany him any further.

Approximately at 22.30 Lieutenant Vogel came to the headquarters and declared that they had dumped the corpse of R. Luxemburg into the river Spree.

The second car returned approximately at 23.00 with the officers who had taken away K.Liebknecht, and they said that they took the latter along the road towards the Zoological Park and faked a breakdown in the car. They stopped the car and got out of it. Then lieutenant Shultz took a pen-knife out of Liebknecht’s pocket, cut himself on the arm and then shot Karl Liebknecht, thereby trying to depict that Liebknecht was killed while attempting to escape during which he injured Shultz.

On 16th January Runge was summoned to the regimental headquarters where Captain Pabst gave Runge the order: stay, without leaving at the apartment of Lieutenant Liepmann till he received the necessary documents for departure.

After a gap of 8 days Lieutenants Kanaris and Liepmann gave Runge false documents in the name of Krankenwerter Dinwald and suggested to him to proceed to Fletsburg and also handed Runge a sum of 1000 Marks.

Runge lived in Fletsburg till 11th April 1919 and then two officers from the crime police came to him and asked Runge to come along with them to Berlin.

On the way to Berlin on the train, these officers of the crime police explained to Runge that he was being taken to the court in a case regarding the murder of K. Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg. He must deny his involvement in the killing, declaring that at the time he, Runge, was living in Fletsburg.

On reaching Berlin Runge was put in jail on 13th April, and on 8th May the legal process started and continued till 14th of May.

On 9th June 1945 during interrogation Otto Runge gave the following evidence:

‘During the time when I was in jail prior to the trial, advocate Grinsbach and judge Hentz came to my cell and gave me instructions as to how I should conduct myself during the trial. They told me to take all the blame on myself and not to involve any of the officers. I was supposed to declare that the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht was carried out by me on my own initiative in a state of insanity’.

During the interrogation of 14.IX.1945 Otto Runge said:

‘After I answered the question put to me by judge Hentz that I had killed Rosa Luxemberg and Karl Liebknecht on my own initiative and in a state of insanity, no more questions were posed to me’.

And further:

‘In reality I was not insane, I was a normal person and was answerable for my acts as a person in full control of his mental abilities.

‘Before the trial I was thrice sent for medical examination and the legal medical consultants doctors Leipmann and Shtrasmon gave the report about my insanity’.

After the officers, who really were involved in the killing of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, when asked by the court replied that they had never issued any orders regarding the killing, indignant and angry shouts were heard in the courtroom from the general public to the effect that the officers were giving false testimony as they were the real perpetrators of the killing and Runge had served only as a tool in their hands. Judge Hentz stopped the trial and removed the public from the courtroom and the session continued in camera.

Runge was sentenced to 25 months in jail by this trial court and all the officers were acquitted.

While serving time in jail, some time in the month of November 1919, one colonel Apshtet, who was then told the whole truth by Runge about the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, visited Runge. Colonel Apshtet made a written record of the interrogation of Runge and told the latter that this record would be placed before the Chairman of the Supreme Military Court for a second inquiry into the case for Runge’s acquittal.

On the 31st of January 1920 by a decision of the Supreme Military Court Runge was released and continued to stay at his home waiting for the second trial.

On the 5th of February 1920 Runge was visited at his home by 3 officers of the police and Heppert, the Head of the administration of the jails. The latter told Runge that new court proceedings were going to be initiated regarding the case of the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, and Runge would appear in these proceedings as a witness and the officers involved in the killing as the accused. However, due to political compulsions Runge would have to be put in jail again. Heppert took away the certificate of release by the Supreme Court’ (Vishii Verkhovnii Sud — trans.) from Runge and he was taken to the jail by the policemen where he stayed till 24th March still waiting for the trial to begin.

In connection with the publication of an article in one of the journals by its editor, one Bornstein, regarding the wrong sentence passed by Judge Hentz in 1919 in the case regarding the killing of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, a new trial was initiated in which Runge appeared as a witness.

During the interrogation of 8th August of this year Otto Runge said:

‘About 8 days before the beginning of the trial of Judge Hentz I was approached by two persons who offered me 10,000 marks so that I would give the same evidence in this trial regarding the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht as I gave in the earlier trial of 1919. These people did not mention their names but did mention that they had come on the personal request of Judge Hentz. I refused to accept their offer’.

During this interrogation Runge also said:

‘At the trial of Judge Hentz I told the entire truth, how the killing was really carried out and also about the attempt to kill Wilhelm Pieck’.

At the trial of Judge Hentz Wilhelm Pieck was also present as a witness.

For fraudulently passing the judgement in the case regarding the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in 1919, Judge Hentz, supposedly, was dismissed from the post of the Chief Prosecutor of Germany after a trial in 1929.

It was not possible to investigate the matter of the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in greater detail, despite my written directive, in view of the fact that no more witnesses or direct participants of the killing could be found, and Runge’s health sharply deteriorated in the second half of August. On 1st September Runge died due to deteriorating symptoms of old age (Runge was born in 1875).

Military Prosecutor of the Berlin garrison
Colonel of Law
Kotlyar

Courtesy: ‘Vestnik’ No.1, 1995. Translated from the Russian by Tahir Asghar.

 

Epitaphs For Karl Liebknecht and
Rosa Luxemburg

Bertolt Brecht

Epitaph 1919

Red Rosa has also now disappeared
Where she lies is unknown
Because she told the truth to the poor
The rich have hunted her out of the world.

Epitaph for Karl Liebknecht

Here lies
Karl Liebknecht
The fighter against war
When he was struck down
Our city still continued to stand.

Epitaph for Rosa Luxemburg

Here lies buried
Rosa Luxemburg
A Jewess from Poland
Champion of the German workers Murdered on the orders of
The German oppressors. Oppressed;
Bury your differences!

Translated from the German by V.P. Sharma

 

karlkoll

In Memory of Karl Liebknecht, 1919-20, Käthe Kollwitz

Source

V.I. Lenin on the International and World War I

1907980_300186093472898_987112679549876919_n

“An International does not mean sitting at the same table and having hypocritical and pettifogging resolutions written by people who think that genuine internationalism consists in German socialists justifying the German bourgeoisie’s call to shoot down French workers, and in French socialists justifying the French bourgeoisie’s call to shoot down German workers in the name of the ‘defence of the fatherland!’ The International consists in the coming together (first ideologically, then in due time organisationally as well) of people who, in these grave days, are capable of defending socialist internationalism in deed, i.e., of mustering their forces and ‘being the next to shoot’ at the governments and the ruling classes of their own respective ‘fatherlands.’ This is no easy task; it calls for much preparation and great sacrifices and will be accompanied by reverses. However, for the very reason that it, is no easy task, it must be accomplished only together with those who wish to perform it and are not afraid of a complete break with the chauvinists and with the defenders of social-chauvinism.”

 – V.I. Lenin, “Dead Chauvinism and Living Socialism: How the International Can be Restored”

James Connolly on Socialism and Nationalism

james-connolly

“If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed. Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin – is only national recreancy.”

 – James Connolly, “Socialism and Nationalism,” quoted in Shan Van Vocht newspaper in 1897.

Friedrich Engels on Morality

engels-5

“We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. That in this process there has on the whole been progress in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, no one will doubt. But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life. And now one can gauge Herr Dühring’s presumption in advancing his claim, from the midst of the old class society and on the eve of a social revolution, to impose on the future classless society an eternal morality independent of time and changes in reality.”

 –  Friedrich Engels, “Anti-Dühring”

On Closed Speech of Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU

large

George Gruenthal

Book Review:  Khrushchev Lied, by Grover Furr

Prof. Grover Furr has done a great service to Marxist-Leninists and all revolutionaries and to all those who are interested in historical truth. He has picked out 61 major statements from Khrushchev’s 20th Congress speech, checked them against other material, especially from the Russian archives that have recently been made public, and found that they are all lies. He gives extensive quotes from primary sources, as well as from internet web-sites that give English translations of the source material. Thus, he has made available and translated a wealth of material, especially valuable for those who do not read Russian.

In order to make the book more readable, Furr has divided it into two parts. In the first, with 221 pages, he presents each of 61 statements and the basic material that refutes them. In the second part, an Appendix of 194 pages, Furr presents additional documentation to back up the refutations. Thus, people who want to read the ‘short version’ can read only the first part; those who want the full details may find it easiest to read each chapter together with the corresponding chapter in the Appendix.

I will give several examples of Furr’s revelations to provide an idea of the scope of his book.

1) Khrushchev claimed that ‘Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint and the correctness of his position was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation.’

There are many facts that contradict this. We will mention only one, by Marshal Zhukov on military matters, which Furr quotes: ‘After Stalin’s death appeared the one about how he used to take military and strategic decisions unilaterally. This was not the case at all. I have already said above that if you reported questions to the Supreme Commander with a knowledge of your business, he took them into account. I know of cases when he turned against his own previous opinion and changed decisions he had taken previously’ (both quotes, Furr, p. 245).

2) Khrushchev implied, without actually stating it, that Kirov was killed by or on the orders of Stalin. Furr points out that very little of the material on Kirov’s murder has been published, or even made available to researchers. He does note that the well-known author on Soviet history, J. Arch Getty, pointed out that several Soviet and post-Soviet commissions had tried and failed to find evidence that Stalin was behind Kirov’s murder. Former Soviet General Sudoplatov, who provided much information (or misinformation) on Soviet activities to the West after the fall of the Soviet Union, stated in 1996: ‘No documents or evidence exist to support the theory of the participation of Stalin or of the apparat of the NKVD in Kirov’s assassination… Kirov was not an alternative to Stalin. He was one of the staunchest Stalinists. Khrushchev’s version was later approved and used by Gorbachev as part of his anti-Stalin campaign’ (p. 274).

3) Khrushchev claimed that Stalin was responsible for mass repressions in the late 1930s. But Furr points out that Khrushchev himself was guilty of mass repressions, both as Party head in Moscow and then as Party head of the Ukraine. Furr quotes from a note that Khrushchev sent to Stalin: ‘Dear Iosif Vissiaronovich! The Ukraine sends [requests for] 17,000 – 18,000 [persons to be] repressed every month. And Moscow confirms no more than 2,000 – 3,000. I request that you take prompt measures. Your devoted N. Khrushchev’ (p. 259). Furr thinks that Khrushchev was responsible for more repressions than anyone else except for Ezhov (Yezhov).

4) Furr points out that Stalin was always in favour of dealing with Trotskyites and other agents as individuals, not through mass repression. He also proposed carrying out political education of leading Party officials. Some of this has been known for a long time to those not blinded by bourgeois-Trotskyite propaganda. Stalin discussed this in ‘Mastering Bolshevism,’ in which he called for each of the leading Party cadre to select temporary replacements for themselves while they attended courses in Party history and ideology (see Furr, p. 280-281). As to the question of mass repression, Stalin stated: ‘how to carry out in practice the task of smashing the German-Japanese agents of Trotskyism. Does this mean that we should strike and uproot not only the real Trotskyites, but also those who wavered at some time toward Trotskyism; not only those who are really Trotskyite agents for wrecking, but also those who happened once upon a time to go along a street where some Trotskyite or other had once passed? At any rate, such voices were heard here at the plenum. Can we consider such an interpretation of the resolution to be correct?

‘No, we cannot consider it to be correct. On this question, as on all other questions, there must be an individual, differentiated approach. You must not measure everyone by the same yardstick. Such a sweeping approach can only harm the cause of struggle against the real Trotskyite wreckers and spies’ (p. 282, Furr’s emphasis).

In this connection it is also worth reading the section of Zhdanov’s speech at the 18th Party Congress in 1939, Amendments to the Rules of the C.P.S.U.(B.), on eliminating mass purges. This is not discussed in Furr’s book, but is available in the archives of Revolutionary Democracy at www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/zhd.htm.

5) After Khrushchev came to power, he and his supporters began a process of ‘mass rehabilitations’ of many high-level officials who had been repressed earlier. Without doing any investigation to see who was actually innocent of any crimes and who was really guilty, people were simply declared innocent. In so doing, crucial statements of people who had admitted their guilt were sometimes totally distorted to make them appear to be claiming innocence.

One example of this is a letter to Stalin written by Gen. Iakir, who had been found guilty of treason along with Marshal Tukhachevskii and was soon to be executed. Marshal Zhukov read from this letter at the CC Plenum in June of 1957 (the Plenum at which the ‘anti-Party bloc’ of Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich were expelled from the CC). However, a more complete version of the letter has since been published, in 1994. Zhukov had omitted from the text the words printed below in bold:

‘Dear, close com. Stalin. I dare address you in this way because I have told everything and it seems to me that I am once more that honourable warrior, devoted to Party, state and people, that I was for many years. All my conscious life has been passed in selfless, honourable work in the sight of the Party and its leaders. – then I fell into a nightmare, into the irreparable horror of treason… The investigation is finished. The indictment of treason to the state has been presented to me, I have admitted my guilt, I have repented completely. I have unlimited faith in the justice and appropriateness of the decision of the court and the government. Now each of my words is honest. I die with words of love to you, the Party, the country, with a fervent belief in the victory of communism’ (pp. 214-215).

Zhukov tries to turn an admission of guilt into a proclamation of innocence. It would be hard to imagine a more dishonest example of falsifying a quotation.

6) In 1936, Ezhov took over as head of the NKVD after the removal and later execution of Yagoda for being a member of the Rightist conspiracy. Ezhov had many people, including many who were innocent, arrested and executed from 1937 to 1938. This period was colloquially known as the Yezhovshchina. Ezhov was removed from his post in late 1938 and was arrested and executed the following year. He was replaced by Beria, who put an end to the mass arrests and, after investigations, had many innocent people released from prison. It was this writer’s understanding that Ezhov had been executed simply for taking a heartless, bureaucratic attitude towards these mass arrests.

In the last few years, however, many of the transcripts of the interrogations of Ezhov have been published, and Furr refers readers to the English translations of these on the Internet. They show that Ezhov organised these mass arrests and executions ‘to cover up his own involvement in the Rightist conspiracy and with German military espionage, as well as in a conspiracy to assassinate Stalin or another Politburo member, and to seize power by coup d’état’  (p. 57). Furr includes some 15 pages of documents on Ezhov’s case in his Appendix.

7) We shall shortly move on to areas dealt with in Furr’s book, and particularly some of the fables about Stalin’s behaviour during World War II.

However, we would like to first point out a short but fascinating account of the behaviour of the Trotskyites in the Spanish Civil War. Furr quotes Gen. Sudoplatov:

‘The Trotskyites were also involved in actions. Making use of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organised a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937…. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schulze-Boysen…. Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case’ (p. 269).

Schulze-Boysen was a German citizen who spied for the Soviet Union from within the SS. The Nazi military court which tried and executed him for this espionage confirmed Sudoplatov’s statement.  It declared: ‘At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz,’ [a member of the ‘Red Orchestra,’ the famous Soviet anti-Nazi spy ring] ‘was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris’ (p. 270).

8) Let us now take up some of Khrushchev’s lies, since repeated by many others, about Stalin’s actions during the war.

a) The first is that Stalin was not prepared for the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union. There is no question that Stalin knew that Nazi Germany would eventually attack the Soviet Union. The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact was signed to delay that attack for as long as possible. Furr points out that, in these circumstances, Stalin could not have carried out a mobilisation of Soviet forces, as that would have given Hitler the opportunity to declare war and possibly make a deal with the Western allies. He quotes a statement from a German General-Major Marks in 1940 that ‘The Russians will not do us the favour of attacking us first’ (p. 88). Moreover, the Soviet Union could not rely on British warnings of an impending attack, since Britain clearly wanted to set Hitler against the Soviet Union, and then possibly make a deal with Hitler.

b) Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in the early hours of June 22, 1941. In his speech, Khrushchev blamed Stalin for allegedly ignoring information about the impending attack. He quoted a statement by a Soviet Captain, Vorontsov, that had contained information from a Soviet citizen, Bozer, that ‘Germany is preparing to invade the USSR on May 14.’ This information is contained in a letter by Admiral Kuznetsov to Stalin of May 6, which has now been published in full. The letter concludes with Kuznetsov’s statement that  ‘I believe that this information is false, specifically directed through this channel with the object of reaching our government in order to find out how the USSR would react to it’ (pp. 344-345).

c) In his speech, Khrushchev also told of a German citizen who crossed the border with the Soviet Union on the eve of the invasion and stated that the Soviet Union would be attacked at 3 AM the following morning, June 22. Khrushchev claims that ‘Stalin was informed of this immediately, but even this warning was ignored..

Furr points out that the warning was not ignored, that the information was transmitted to Moscow as quickly as possible considering the need to find a reliable translator and to verify the information. In fact, after the attack the statement by the German soldier, Alfred Liskow, a self-declared communist, was published by Pravda and made into a leaflet to undermine the morale of the German soldiers by letting them know that there were opponents of the war and Hitlerism, friends of the Soviet Union, in their ranks.

Furr also refutes Khrushchev’s statement, again repeated by many others, that Stalin was demoralised at the beginning of the war and that he had withdrawn from any activities in those first days. Furr points out that the logbooks of visitors to Stalin’s office show that Stalin was extremely active in those days and quotes from Dimitrov, as well as Zhukov and the anti-Stalinists Volkogonov and Sudoplatov, all of whom testified to Stalin’s activity in the first days of the war.

Khrushchev also denigrated Stalin’s abilities as a wartime commander. In response, Furr quotes military figures such as Marshals Zhukov, Vasilevsky and Golovanov, all of whom testified in their memoirs not only to Stalin’s great abilities as wartime commander but also to the great respect felt for him by other commanders at the front.


To conclude, I would like to add a few remarks on Furr’s standpoint, his position and views toward Stalin and Soviet socialism.

Furr is an objective researcher and scholar, although he clearly also is sympathetic to Stalin and the Soviet Union under his leadership. In this way he is different from other researchers such as J. Arch Getty who, although he is not a sympathiser of socialism, was one of the first researchers in the post-Stalin period to dispel some of the myths behind the general anti-communist depictions of Stalin as some sort of ogre.

It is certainly necessary for researchers who adopt a proletarian class stand to start from objective facts; otherwise one becomes an idealist who wants the world to correspond to his ideological views, instead of vice-versa. Throughout the book, Prof. Furr starts from objective facts and follows them to their conclusions, which lead to a clear demonstration that Khrushchev lied throughout his ‘secret speech’ in 1956.

However, Furr does not go much beyond this conclusion. He correctly states that the facts overturn the ‘anti-Stalin paradigm’ that has been basic to much of the anti-communist view of Soviet history, both in the Soviet Union and the rest of the world, since the middle of the last century. But he barely discusses the significance of this. For example, there is little mention of the fact that Khrushchev’s speech was accepted by a large part of the international communist movement, that this led to the split in this movement between Marxist-Leninist forces and revisionists a few years later, and that the struggle between them is still of great significance for the world communist movement today.

Of course, one cannot rebuke Furr for not taking up a task that he had no intention of taking up. Furr does briefly discuss what he sees as the reasons for Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin in Chapter 12: ‘Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of Khrushchev’s Deception.’ He says: ‘Stalin and his supporters had championed a plan of democratisation of the USSR through contested elections. Their plan seems to have been to move the locus of power in the USSR from Party leaders like Khrushchev to elected government representatives. Doing this would also have laid the groundwork for restoring the Party as an organisation of dedicated persons struggling for communism rather than for careers or personal gain. Khrushchev appears to have had the support of the Party First Secretaries, who were determined to sabotage this project and perpetuate their own positions of privilege’ (p. 200).

He then mentions other so-called ‘reforms’ that were carried out after Stalin’s death. These include: a shift towards ‘market’-oriented reforms; a shift from heavy industry, production of the means of production, towards light, consumer industry; from the Marxist-Leninist view that war is inevitable as long as imperialism exists to the avoidance of war with imperialism at any cost; a de-emphasis on the vanguard role of the working class in the revolution; the view that capitalism could be overcome through ‘peaceful competition’ by parliamentary means; and an abandonment of Stalin’s plan to move towards communism, classless society.

This writer is in agreement with the need to prevent the party from becoming an organisation of careerists. However, it is not at all clear that ‘contested elections’ would prevent bureaucratisation. (Besides, in choosing candidates for the Soviets, there were discussions of different candidates all along this line. For more on this, see the fascinating chapter of Sam Darcy’s memoirs: ‘How Soviet Democracy Worked in the 1930s’, in Revolutionary Democracy Vol. XI. No. 2, Sept. 2005, available at: www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm.). Rather, this writer thinks it would be more important to reinforce the Party maximum (maximum salary that a Party member was allowed to receive, regardless of what position he held) and limit other material privileges available to Party leaders. Nor is it clear why moving the ‘locus of power’ from Party leaders to government representatives would increase democracy. This writer thinks that it would have been more important to strengthen the struggle against revisionism. For example, the necessary fight against Titoism seems to have been itself carried out in a bureaucratic way, compared to the way the struggles against Trotskyism and Bukharinism were carried out in the 1920s. That may be why the Soviet Union and all the Eastern European countries except for Albania followed the path of Titoism less than a decade later. However, this is all the subject for much further debate.

‘Khrushchev Lied’ is available from Erythrós Press at: www.erythrospress.com/store/furr.html

Source

ICMLPO (Unity and Struggle): NATO: Organization of War and Terror

NATO_logo_lLIBYA NO-FLYZONE

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded 60 years ago by a coalition of Western capitalist countries, led by the U.S., as an organization of military encirclement, aggression, attack and war against the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies.

NATO was conceived as an instrument of aggression of the imperialist camp that was trying to reconstruct its forces under United States leadership, to apply its aggressive policy in all spheres: Economically by means of institutions like the IMF and World Bank; politically through different regional organizations, the Western alliance was lined up in battle order and fortified its system by founding NATO militarily. Contrary to what is generally stated and accepted, NATO was not created against a possible threat by the USSR, but it was founded with aggressive aims six years before the formation of the Warsaw Pact.

NATO’s objective was one of militarily encirclement, aggression and subversion, without excluding the use of force against the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc; at the same time it would serve to repress the internal opposition in the Western capitalist countries.

The most concrete example is the clandestine creation in almost all the NATO countries of (counter-guerrilla) organizations such as Gladio, several of which still exist. Those forces, which have organized provocations, sabotage, assassinations and coups d’état in the European countries to prevent the development of a workers and popular opposition, have done it under the shelter of NATO and the U.S.

NATO was formed in 1949 by 12 countries as a “regional defense organization”. It spread quickly among other Western countries, and after the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc, it was transformed into a “global” organization of 26 countries, including former states of the Eastern bloc.

In a document entitled “Strategic Concept for the 21st Century”, approved in 1999 in a summit on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of NATO, it clearly says that NATO is “a global military organization”. That is, the fifty-year-old great lie was acknowledged openly when NATO stated that the organization had a clearly fixed objective, which was the destruction of socialism and the Soviet Union. This was in contradiction with the fundamental principles of the UN, and therefore it was not “a regional and defensive organization.”

Today NATO is the armed branch of the global war of the capitalists and imperialists, an enormous war machine with a budget of 1,500 billion Euros, 22,000 employees and an army of 60,000 men prepared to intervene at any time; NATO organizes operations and interventions beyond the region established at its foundation (Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and indirectly, Iraq, Sudan, etc.).

Presently NATO has dozens of military bases established in different countries, hundreds of bombs and nuclear warheads, weapons of mass destruction, both biological and conventional, etc. They are trying to extend this organization and thus permanently impose their order by force,

The financial, economic and social crisis that is shaking the world, and that is getting worse day by day, is increasing tensions and leading to an increasing militarization: the threat of war is palpable.

Worldwide military expenses have risen to $1,335 billion dollars in 2007. Clearly, these weapons will not be allowed to rot in warehouses. Therefore the idea of getting out of the economic crisis by means of war is being raised seriously.

The summit that the imperialist powers organized on the 60th anniversary of NATO debated its expansion towards the East, deploying anti-missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic; plans against the workers, peoples, oppressed nations, and even against rival imperialist forces.

We, the members of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO), call on the progressive forces and workers of the world to participate in the protests organized on this 60th anniversary of NATO, and to take part in the common demonstration planned for April 4 in Strasbourg, France.

Stop the militarization, reduce the budgets for arms and use that money to satisfy the needs of the peoples and youths!

  • Dismantle the military bases, destroy the nuclear arms!
  • Withdraw the NATO occupation forces!
  • Dissolve NATO, a military organization for aggression!

International Conference of Marxist-Leninists Parties and Organizations

March, 2009

Source

V.I. Lenin on Slogans

1554451_567168546702505_100781743_n

“Kautsky is pursuing a characteristically petty—bourgeois, philistine policy by pretending (and trying to make the people believe the absurd idea) that putting forward a slogan alters the position. The entire history of bourgeois democracy refutes this illusion; the bourgeois democrats have always advanced all sorts of “slogans” to deceive the people. The point is to test their sincerity, to compare their words with their deeds, not to be satisfied with idealistic or charlatan phrases, but to get down to class reality.”

– Lenin, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”